D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[billd91]

On the other hand, being 8 levels into a 5e game with random rolls, I'll say that it doesn't seem the best for this system. The feat mechanics don't work as well when a character starts with 18 or even 20 in their prime stat. Power level disparities can be irritating if players (human beings that they are) ever get into the competitive bs. Ultimately, I think the game plays best when starting with the power level set by the standard array.

I think rolled stats has been working pretty in the 5e I've been running. If there's a power disparity with a prime characteristic, the cap keeps the spread from being too high and the advancements mean the lower powered character catches up. It works for me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This. I'm a day late in responding to GMFPG's quote of mine, but this is basically it. The problem with your analogy GM is that you're missing the very important fact that everyone has the same options and same choice of what they want. To fix your analogy to be correct, it would be:

Everyone gets a choice to get 3 pieces of pizza, or you can go through the line and take a chance that you you can get 4, but you might get 2. If you all choose the safe 3, and Jimmy takes a risk and gets 4, complaining that it isn't fair isn't a very adult thing to do. It would be like me complaining that Joe got a better return on his investment than me when I kept my $ in a bond and he invested it in a stock that took off. It would be childish of me to blame Joe for my lack of risk taking choices.

no, your anology fails because at no point does how much money you have and how much money I have matter, unless I can't pay my bills... then I can complain "I can't pay my bills"

You all act like this is some kind of conspiracy to complain about something... NOBODY COMPLAINS WHEN THEY ARE HAVING FUN!!!

to fix your analogy, it isn't "Everyone can have 3 or try for more or less" it's if we are fair everyone gets 3, but we can instead be 'first come first serve' with some people might take more. It is perfectly in my right to say "Hey, I don't like getting stuck with less pizza because of how you choose to do it." now at my house I can be fair, and at your house you can choose to be unfair, but you can't tell me I can't voice that I don't like that you do it unfair when I am at your house.... (I can say I will always DM point buy, and my roommate can say he will always make it random... both of us have every right to complain we would prefer the other way.)

*edit* And if you all are told what method would be used and agree to it, then you don't have a right to complain either because everyone was given the same opportunity.

So just to make sure we are on the same page... if we all pay 5$ to see a movie planning to see the avengers, but after we pay there is only 1 seat for avengers and one for showgirls 2, witch is a worse plot but rated pg(I can't imagine a worse movie) and we race for the seat... the person who has to watch the crumby movie can't complain because they COULD have won? I don't understand.

Using this logic is like saying 1 in 10 people get hit by cars, but if you got hit by a car you can't complain because you had the same 1 in 10 chance as everyone else...

the fact that you got unlucky is WHAT you complain about....

I.e., the very definition of fairness.

fair-ness
[fair-nis]

noun

1.the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness:
I have to admit, in all fairness, that she would only be paid for part of the work.


2.the quality of being light of hair or complexion:
She was proud of the fairness of her skin, and never went out without a parasol and gloves.

and

fair1


/fer/


adjective

adjective: fair; comparative adjective: fairer; superlative adjective: fairest



1.


in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
"the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"


synonyms: just, equitable, honest, upright, honorable, trustworthy; More
impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, neutral, even-handed;

lawful, legal, legitimate;

informallegit, on the level;

on the up and up


"the courts were generally fair"



antonyms: unjust, biased



•just or appropriate in the circumstances.
"to be fair, this subject poses special problems"




•archaic
(of a means or procedure) gentle; not violent.



•Baseball
(of a batted ball) within the field of play marked by the first and third baselines.



•Baseball
pertaining to the fair part of the field.
"the ball was hit into fair territory"





2.


(of hair or complexion) light; blond.

synonyms: blond/blonde, yellowish, golden, flaxen, light, light brown, ash blond More

"fair hair"


•pale, light, light-colored, white, creamy

"Hermione's fair skin"



antonyms: dark



•(of a person) having a light complexion or blond hair.





3.


considerable though not outstanding in size or amount.
"he did a fair bit of coaching"


synonyms: reasonable, passable, tolerable, satisfactory, acceptable, respectable, decent, all right, good enough, pretty good, not bad, average, middling; More
informalOK, so-so, ‘comme ci, comme ça’


"the restaurant was fair"




•moderately good though not outstandingly so.
"he believes he has a fair chance of success"





4.


(of weather) fine and dry.

synonyms: fine, dry, bright, clear, sunny, cloudless; More
warm, balmy, clement, benign, pleasant


"fair weather"



antonyms: inclement



•(of the wind) favorable.
"they set sail with a fair wind"


synonyms: favorable, advantageous, benign; More
on one's side, in one's favor


"fair winds"



antonyms: unfavorable





5. archaic
beautiful: attractive.
"the fairest of her daughters"

•(of words, a speech, or a promise) false, despite being initially attractive or pleasing; specious.


adverb

adverb: fair

1. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.
"no one could say he played fair"


2. dialect to a high degree.
"she'll be fair delighted to see you"
\noun
archaic

noun: fair; plural noun: fairs



1. a beautiful woman.

verb dialect
verb: fair; 3rd person present: fairs; past tense: faired; past participle: faired; gerund or present participle: fairing
1. (of the weather) become fine.
"looks like it's fairing off some"

I don't see anything about opportunity... I see stuff about advantages...

The result of something does not determine if something is fair or not. It's the opportunity that does. And as mentioned, if you don't like that, then there's nothing stopping you from playing with a DM who uses rules you do like, or from DMing a game yourself.

wait... so again you claim that having the same opportunity is fair....

so if a game said "Roll 1d100, if you roll above 99 you get to add 10 to all your stats and gain immunity to non magical weapon attacks and resistance to magical weapon attacks" then all 7 players rolled, and 1 got it and 6 didn't... that would be fair to play the next year to year and a half based on one roll? The entire rule is unfair regardless of opportunity, because it either A) doesn't matter (aka no one gets it) or B) someone gets it and makes the game very much lopsided...

you have a very odd sense of fair...

heck in your mind it must be fair that 1 in X people get assaulted, and the people who do shouldn't complain that they were assaulted because they had the same opportunity to not be assaulted...

(I tried to google real 1 in X assaults but kept getting sexual assaults and didn't want to go there)

 

[Hussar]

I think I said this before in this thread, but, the entire point of die rolled characters is to game the system. Low roll characters are rerolled, or otherwise fudged nearly all the time. High end characters are kept. I really think it goes back to 1e where having high stats gave you XP bonuses, and you only got bonuses with very high stats. It trained everyone to expect very high stats for D&D PC's.

Again, survey the die rolled characters in your current group. If die rolling was fair, then the average should be the same as point buy. But, I'll bet dollars to donuts, the average point buy value of the PC's in your group is above point buy value. And, if experience is a guide, probably very well above. Funny that.

 

[redrick]

I think rolled stats has been working pretty in the 5e I've been running. If there's a power disparity with a prime characteristic, the cap keeps the spread from being too high and the advancements mean the lower powered character catches up. It works for me.

I don't think it's game breaking, by any stretch, but, personally, the random and disparate power levels just don't add anything.

What does add something, for the kind of game I want to play, is having random abilities that then inform the character. That's what I like about rolling abilities -- looking at 6 stats and saying, what class will I be? What will my limitations be? It gives me a character with any interesting mix of abilities that I wouldn't come up with if I just picked something for myself.

That's why I'm trying the random point buy. Still random, but without the super low outcomes, or, equally bad in my opinion, the super high outcomes. As a DM, I don't want my PCs to be level 1 with 18+ ability scores. Might as well hand out a +1 sword with the starting equipment.

But that's just me and my game. Everybody's game SHOULD be different.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think it's game breaking, by any stretch, but, personally, the random and disparate power levels just don't add anything.

What does add something, for the kind of game I want to play, is having random abilities that then inform the character. That's what I like about rolling abilities -- looking at 6 stats and saying, what class will I be? What will my limitations be? It gives me a character with any interesting mix of abilities that I wouldn't come up with if I just picked something for myself.

That's why I'm trying the random point buy. Still random, but without the super low outcomes, or, equally bad in my opinion, the super high outcomes. As a DM, I don't want my PCs to be level 1 with 18+ ability scores. Might as well hand out a +1 sword with the starting equipment.

But that's just me and my game. Everybody's game SHOULD be different.

this is part of the problem (and why like I said months ago the most fun I had was taking what I wanted) it serves 2 masters... people who pretend to like random but only except high end results. people who honestly roll and take what they get (weather they like random or not)

Earlyer in this thread I talked about moonbeam, my friend Kurt played him and had a blast with super low stats... a few years later he rolled up a paladin/fighter (I can't remember if it was a feat or a choice of gods, but he could multi those two) and our other friend paul rolled his 'younger brother' a warlock/rogue.... Kurt was supposed to by concept be the concement swordsman, and paul the concement con artist always getting in too deep and needing his big brother to get him out... but Paul Min maxed better and rolled better stats, and (it was 3.5 starting above level 1) bought better items... SO Paul's character had 1 less to hit with his sword, did WAY more damage, the two of them had equal ACs, and paul had the edge on hp.... and paul's sword crit on an 18+ well kurts on a 19+.... kurt had no fun with that game.... the problem isn't kurt, as I said earlier he managed to make the best of moonbeam.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sigh....No dude. It's not unfair if everyone is treated....wait for it....fairly. If we are playing identical characters, both using 1d10 for our damage role, we are both being treated fairly because we're both on the exact same playing field. Because I average a 5.1 for my damage and you roll well and average a 6.3 over the course of the night does not mean the game is unfair against me.

I really don't know how else to explain it. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because if you don't like to play that way, then DON'T PLAY THAT WAY. It's really that simple. Play with another DM, or God forbid, DM your own game the way you want to. But playing a game where every player is treated the same and given the same opportunities and claiming that's unfair? Really odd, on a lot of levels.

 

[Zardnaar]

I saw a PC roll this yesterday, 4d6 drop the lowest.

11
13
13
13
15
17

He kept the PC.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I like rolling stats, so I allow my players to roll stats once or point buy if they don't like the rolled array. Each of my players also has multiple PCs in his character tree, so there's not even any need to suicide unwanted characters--you can just leave them in the tree. Or bring them along on an outing as a redshirt, so you don't risk your "real" PCs.

I just realized that my ideal approach to PC mortality is XCOM: UFO Defense. That is, awesome, high-level characters can excel, but even a bog-standard Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 guardsman can be useful as a spotter and a guard if you give him some decent equipment, and if he dies you just hire another Jurgen Geisler to take his place. Sometimes guys with terrible stats save the day anyway by being in the right place at the right time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sigh....No dude. It's not unfair if everyone is treated....wait for it....fairly. If we are playing identical characters, both using 1d10 for our damage role, we are both being treated fairly because we're both on the exact same playing field. Because I average a 5.1 for my damage and you roll well and average a 6.3 over the course of the night does not mean the game is unfair against me.

I really don't know how else to explain it. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because if you don't like to play that way, then DON'T PLAY THAT WAY. It's really that simple. Play with another DM, or God forbid, DM your own game the way you want to. But playing a game where every player is treated the same and given the same opportunities and claiming that's unfair? Really odd, on a lot of levels.

1st I DM every Tuesday night (except the last week of the month when I play) and I GM 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on saterdays (playing on the off weeks, so I run more often then I play...

second if we roll 1d10 for damage 100 times it will even out, but that isn't the same as 1 set of rolls commanding the entire campaign.


If I generate 3d6 in order 18,18,18,16,16,17 it doesn't matter what the average is, or if I had the opportunity to roll bad... what matters is as my reward I get to play a more powerful character then someone who rolls 11,13,8,12,7,14 those stats alone are unplayble, but it defiantly isn't fair to make someone play with one over the other

 

[Sunseeker]

I saw a PC roll this yesterday, 4d6 drop the lowest.

11
13
13
13
15
17

He kept the PC.

I'd keep it too. Use the 5E standard human, now I'm rocking 18, 16, 14, 14, 14, 12. Nothing shabby about those stats would work well with any class in the game.

I'd be concerned if someone rolled 12, 10, 8, 8, 6, 5 and kept their character over taking the point-buy.

Personally, I could easily play with a group who had all 20's and each a +1 weapon. I'd simply up the CR of the monsters they face.

Stats, by themselves are unimportant. It's sort of the old "not the size but what you do with it" axiom. A player can have great stats awesome weapons, you name it, but if they play like a moron they'll die like a mook. And of course, a well-coordinated party of mooks designed to cover each others weaknesses and played tactically with no magic items will succeed far and beyond what their stats would suggest. Sure, there's always the "perfect storm" danger of a party with great stats and great gameplay absolutely wrecking the game but there are available solutions to that as well.